🚀 go-pugleaf

Gordon at BU-CS writes:

> ....  I feel that in some cases verbal communications can be more easily 
> misinterpreted than written communications.  Think of how often it is that 
> two people fail to resolve trivial differences because of psychological 
> factors which from a more objective point of view have no bearing on the 
> real problem.  Egos, power-plays, office politics, racial/sexual/ethnic/age 
> differences, etc often steer people away from reason.  People often don't 
> notice this happening until after the fact because verbal communications 
> allow for very fuzzy thinking.   

It is true that verbal communication has drawbacks.  But all forms of 
communication have drawbacks.  E-mail "flames" readily come to mind.  And 
the ability to write well can't suffice as an "acid test."  Different 
relationships require different forms of communication, and a person
needs to relate well both by writing and by talking.  (Also, non-verbal
and non-written forms of communication abound; someone who sounds
good on radio may not come across well on television, etc.)

Each person has a "best form" of communication.  Some people are very good 
writers, but stutter and stumble through a speech.  Usenet (and e-mail) 
offers people who are good writers a means of communication suited for 
them.  Other people find the telephone best for them;  still others find 
face-to-face communication best.  And, of course, the way two (or more) 
people interact affects what we can consider their "optimal" mode of 
communication.

E-mail is no better and no worse than any other form.  It has its place 
along with the rest.  What we need to do is identify when it is the most 
appropriate way to communicate and use it for those situations.  We run 
the risk of alienating everyone who does not e-mail well (or talk well, 
etc.) if we only validate one form of communication.

				Bill Kules